Linux-based smart rifle manufacturer to improve its range by 3x.

Ars has written several times before about Austin-based TrackingPoint, producers of "precision guided firearms," or PGFs. TrackingPoint's current set of products is a range of bolt-action hunting rifles which use a large computerized scope to assist their users in making shots at distances of up to about 1,000 yards (about 915 meters). The system works well enough that even novice rifle users can reliably place rounds on target at that distance, as we found out when we demoed several PGFs back in March.

TrackingPoint's initial run of PGFs have almost all been pre-sold, and the company is looking to expand in a big way: it plans to construct a technology demonstrator tentatively called the "Super Gun," which will be able to fire a large projectile and achieve a typical PGF's single-shot accuracy at distances out to more than 3,000 yards—that's about 1.7 miles, or 2.7 kilometers.

"We wanted to be able to push the limits of what the technology is capable of," explained TrackingPoint CEO Jason Schauble to Ars. "We came up with the project to challenge our engineering team, to take things to the next level. Because if I can take it [from twelve hundred yards] to three thousand yards plus, I know I can also hit anything in between."

Some of the challenges in scaling up TrackingPoint's products have to do with simple physics—the 75W pulsed laser range-finder in today's PGF needs to be scaled up, and although the 35x fixed magnification optic will likely remain the same, the CMOS sensor behind the glass through which the scope sees the world will also likely need to be increased from its current 14.1 megapixel resolution. The software challenges brought about by extending the PGF's effective range, however, overshadow most of the hardware issues.

Enlarge/ The computerized tracking scope is a major (and heavy) feature of TrackingPoint's PGF weapons. To scale up to 3000 yards, the scope's laser and computer components would need to be upsized.

Steven Michael

"Once you get beyond about a mile—that's about fifteen hundred meters," he continued, "you get a lot more of a complex ballistic solution, and the downrange effects are multiplied." Schauble characterized the difficulty of computing an accurate shot as increasing geometrically rather than linearly with distance—tripling the range of a PGF is actually close to a six-fold increase in ballistic complexity. Things like the Earth's rotation and the behavior of the fired projectile as it transitions between supersonic and subsonic velocities become significant factors that must be very accurately modeled and accounted for.

Because the "Super Gun" project is intended to be a technology demonstrator rather than an actual production firearm, the engineering group at TrackingPoint is tossing in a lot of additional features to complement the long range. For example, automatic wind compensation and visibility into additional spectra—such as thermal imaging—are also on the table.

Most significantly, Schauble wants the "Super Gun" technology to be usable while in flight—for example, while mounted on a helicopter or drone. "We intend to put something up in the air that can fly, to test out the capabilities of our inertial measurement unit," he said. Schauble went on to explain that the weapon's inertial measurement unit is a key component in the PGF system, allowing it to account for the weapon's motion. "The true test of that inertial measurement unit is to put it up into a true three-dimensional space and see if it can still calculate ballistics properly, and what it would take to do so."

Schauble has a significant pedigree in the precision firearms world. In addition to his military service as an officer in the US Marine Corps (during which he was awarded a Silver Star), he was also a vice president at Remington Defense, where he worked on projects like the military XM2010 enhanced sniper rifle. Though TrackingPoint has maintained that its existing PGF products are intended for civilian hunting applications, the company has also said in the past that selling future products to military or law enforcement was part of the plan. The long rifle hunting PGFs currently on the market are only the first round of PGFs that TrackingPoint intends to make.

"We are in conversation with a number of different military units about applying our technology to their particular requirements," Schauble elaborated when I asked about military customers. Those conversations include discussions on potentially adding PGF technology to existing military tools like unmanned drones, bolt-action rifles, or even crew-served weapons like 50-caliber belt-fed weapons. "We want to be able to provide flexible solutions to the government, just like we provide a specific closed-loop solution to a hunter," he said, referring to the fact that the bolt-action hunting rifle PGFs currently being sold are single-purpose units for hunting, while the military versions would be more adaptable.

The "Super Gun" weapon, though, is envisioned purely as a demonstration of TrackingPoint technology. To that end, TrackingPoint is thinking of developing its own custom weapon and ammunition to nail those 3000-yard shots. I asked Schauble what the "Super Gun" might look like—will it be a large-bore rifle similar to existing PGFs? What type of ammunition would it fire?

Enlarge/ TrackingPoint's existing PGFs are all bolt-action hunting rifles, accurate out to between 800 and 1200 yards, depending on the model.

Steven Michael

"As a general rule," said Schauble, "the larger the caliber, the flatter the trajectory. So we have to take something that's in a [caliber] greater than .40 or .50, but we don't want to go up past 20mm, because there are laws constraining what you can do past .50 caliber."

In the interest of practicality, the "Super Gun" would stick to the large-but-not-ludicrous area around .50 caliber. "We're looking to create something unique," he went on. "We'll probably work with a McMillan action—McMillan is pretty good in the long gun space—and we'll start with a bolt gun....and we're going to wind up having to come up with a unique load to satisfy our requirements."

"So this isn't going to use off-the-shelf .50 BMG or anything?" I asked.

"No," confirmed Schauble, "because while people have been able to achieve hits with that ammunition at those ranges, it definitely isn't a first-round-hit situation."

The "Super Gun" doesn't actually exist yet as a fireable product, but TrackingPoint is busily working on creating it. Many of the fundamental pieces of hardware are already on order from vendors, and the company is looking to spend the fall of this year on integration and testing, with the goal of having a workable product to demo in the front half of 2014.

I closed the interview by asking Schauble about TrackingPoint's opinion on the potential misuse of its weapons—in the TrackingPoint stories we've run in the past, there are always commenters who ask about the potential consequences of a criminal using a PGF to wreak havoc from a mile off. "Right now, firearms exist that can do all of these things that are legally bought and owned by commercial users," he answered. "Forty percent of the people in this country own over three hundred million firearms, and most people who are worried about the capabilities we're able to provide are worried writ large that anyone has a gun....for those people, I'm not ever really going to be able to say anything that will fully satisfy them."

Enlarge/ The PGF rifles all include the ability to mirror the scope's picture to an iPad via Wi-Fi and also to record audio and video of shots. Both law enforcement and military have expressed keen interest in this particular aspect of the PGF design.

Lee Hutchinson

"Certain capabilities we're not going to sell commercially," he continued. "But the ones that we've initially put out we're comfortable with. Allowing someone to make ethical kill shots on an animal at range, as opposed to wounding that animal—we think that's a very positive thing, and the hunting community is embracing that. The ability to record and share their shot... people are finding that is a value-add to their hunting experience."

An aircraft-mounted PGF is one of the capabilities Schauble does not expect to sell to the general public. "Experimenting with three-dimensional space and how to best optimize my inertial measurement unit is not going to be a product that I sell commercially... For some of our government customers who have asked us to look at these things, it lets us give them answers that we can quantifiably back up."

Enlarge/ Looking downrange at targets up to about a thousand yards away. Increasing that distance by 3x makes for a long, long shot.

Lee Hutchinson

"We are a smart weapons company," concluded Schauble. "We're trying to take this smart weapon technology and figure out how we come out with capabilities that are greater than what exist today."

Lee Hutchinson
Lee is the Senior Technology Editor at Ars and oversees gadget, automotive, IT, and culture content. He also knows stuff about enterprise storage, security, and manned space flight. Lee is based in Houston, TX. Emaillee.hutchinson@arstechnica.com//Twitter@Lee_Ars

When I see these, I wonder why they have a human element at all? Why not just sell fully automated turrets which a person presses a button to fire? The effect is basically the same, right? You're letting an automated system do damage to something from 2 miles away.

I'm not proposing it's ethical to allow citizens to own fully automated killing machines. It's just that this is basically a fully automated killing machine. The caveat is that it must be held, basically, like a normal rifle.

When I see these, I wonder why they have a human element at all? Why not just sell fully automated turrets which a person presses a button to fire? The effect is basically the same, right? You're letting an automated system do damage to something from 2 miles away.

It's illegal. A human has to do the aiming and pull the trigger.

Quote:

I'm not proposing it's ethical to allow citizens to own fully automated killing machines. It's just that this is basically a fully automated killing machine. The caveat is that it must be held, basically, like a normal rifle.

It's a fine legal point, but a human always pulls the trigger on these rifles. The software simply decides when the right time to allow the human to pull the trigger is. And the rifle still has to be held reasonably steady on the target.

When I see these, I wonder why they have a human element at all? Why not just sell fully automated turrets which a person presses a button to fire? The effect is basically the same, right? You're letting an automated system do damage to something from 2 miles away.

I'm not proposing it's ethical to allow citizens to own fully automated killing machines. It's just that this is basically a fully automated killing machine. The caveat is that it must be held, basically, like a normal rifle.

The public opinion.

This rifle is cool. It's getting a lot of press, see?

Put it on a mount and move the trigger to the end of a cable, and people would be horrified, and talking heads on TV would have a field day criticizing a killing machine, and folks would write their politicians, and ATF would get involved, and new laws would be written to ban such weapons from civilian hands.

They can certainly pull it off. They need to find a good cartridge that will have both speed and weight which will combine to sufficient momentum to push through air currents. But they would be well advised to try and devise a scope that can see the air currents and adjust the aim accordingly. At 3,000 yards you could easily have 3-4 different air currents moving in different directions, each having a different impact on the bullet.

When I see these, I wonder why they have a human element at all? Why not just sell fully automated turrets which a person presses a button to fire? The effect is basically the same, right? You're letting an automated system do damage to something from 2 miles away.

I'm not proposing it's ethical to allow citizens to own fully automated killing machines. It's just that this is basically a fully automated killing machine. The caveat is that it must be held, basically, like a normal rifle.

This is just an aim assist system. What you're describing is a far cry from what this is trying to accomplish. What you're describing would have several more layers of enginerring including some level of AI for target designation, additional bulk, less backwards compatibility, etc. etc.

They can certainly pull it off. They need to find a good cartridge that will have both speed and weight which will combine to sufficient momentum to push through air currents. But they would be well advised to try and devise a scope that can see the air currents and adjust the aim accordingly. At 3,000 yards you could easily have 3-4 different air currents moving in different directions, each having a different impact on the bullet.

I don't think there's any way to "see" air currents besides using some form of radar. Most likely what they'll do is have the software ask the user to input crosswind estimates for both the firing location and downrange. For a reasonably high-speed bullet, it should be close enough.

They can certainly pull it off. They need to find a good cartridge that will have both speed and weight which will combine to sufficient momentum to push through air currents. But they would be well advised to try and devise a scope that can see the air currents and adjust the aim accordingly. At 3,000 yards you could easily have 3-4 different air currents moving in different directions, each having a different impact on the bullet.

They would probably keep 338 Lapua. It holds the longest confirmed killshot record at 2700 yards. That was done by hand with a traditional rifle and optical scope. Add this thing and I can see how it could be accurate at 3000 yards.

When I see these, I wonder why they have a human element at all? Why not just sell fully automated turrets which a person presses a button to fire? The effect is basically the same, right? You're letting an automated system do damage to something from 2 miles away.

I'm not proposing it's ethical to allow citizens to own fully automated killing machines. It's just that this is basically a fully automated killing machine. The caveat is that it must be held, basically, like a normal rifle.

This is just an aim assist system. What you're describing is a far cry from what this is trying to accomplish. What you're describing would have several more layers of enginerring including some level of AI for target designation, additional bulk, less backwards compatibility, etc. etc.

When I see these, I wonder why they have a human element at all? Why not just sell fully automated turrets which a person presses a button to fire? The effect is basically the same, right? You're letting an automated system do damage to something from 2 miles away.

I'm not proposing it's ethical to allow citizens to own fully automated killing machines. It's just that this is basically a fully automated killing machine. The caveat is that it must be held, basically, like a normal rifle.

This is just an aim assist system. What you're describing is a far cry from what this is trying to accomplish. What you're describing would have several more layers of enginerring including some level of AI for target designation, additional bulk, less backwards compatibility, etc. etc.

It seems like you're just a 3 servo motors away from the turret solution? You still require a human to press a button to fire. Is the legal distinction really that you need a human to pull some very specifically defined "trigger"?

Through the tracking scope, you locate the thing you want to shoot... You place the center reticle over the target and depress the red tagging button just forward of the trigger, which causes the tracking scope's range finder to briefly illuminate the target. After the target has been tagged, the scope's reticle changes to a large blue "X," and the weapon can be fired. To actually send a round downrange to the target, you depress the weapon's trigger. This doesn't cause the weapon to immediately fire, though—the reticle turns red, and while keeping the trigger held down, you must align the reticle with the tagged pip. Once the pip and the reticle coincide, the weapon fires.

Hmm, muzzle velocity on the .338 Laputa is around 900m/s, so it would take three and a third seconds for the bullet to hit the target after it is fired. And this doesn't even account for wind resistance on the way. That is a relative eternity. That enough time for someone to set the gun down and pick up a pair of binocular and see the bullet hit the target through the binoculars.

And yes, this gun is about half a step away from an automated killturret. The only reason they require a human holding the trigger is legal.

They can certainly pull it off. They need to find a good cartridge that will have both speed and weight which will combine to sufficient momentum to push through air currents. ...

They would probably keep 338 Lapua. It holds the longest confirmed killshot record at 2700 yards. That was done by hand with a traditional rifle and optical scope. ...

The 338 Lapua holds the long range record due to accurate ballistics modeling done by the manufacturer. It is likely that to achieve their goals, the 'Super-gun' engineers will need the same or better accuracy ballistics model, but it may not be ideal to use the 338 Lapua shape, materials, mass and charge.

As an aside, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the gun when fired ... even with good hearing protection.

And yes, this gun is about half a step away from an automated killturret. The only reason they require a human holding the trigger is legal.

It's not entirely legal reasons. A turret requires a lot more hardware, while this is basically just a normal rifle with an oversized scope. For a man-portable solution, this kind of system will probably always win out over a turret. OTOH, you are right, it wouldn't take a lot to stick one of these on top of the small scouting robots the military is experimenting with.

Automated turrets have been done before though, the "assist" part is what actually makes this impressive.

When I see these, I wonder why they have a human element at all? Why not just sell fully automated turrets which a person presses a button to fire? The effect is basically the same, right? You're letting an automated system do damage to something from 2 miles away.

I'm not proposing it's ethical to allow citizens to own fully automated killing machines. It's just that this is basically a fully automated killing machine. The caveat is that it must be held, basically, like a normal rifle.

Lovely. So how long until we've got at least one manmade lethal weapon pointed at us everywhere we go?

This is disturbing. A preoccupation with killing things faster, more efficiently, from a safer position. It won't end well. As someone linked above me, we already have automated turrets. How long until they're installed on civilian street corners (in ANY country)?

I'm surprised hat they're intending to use a .50 round out to those distances. At that sort of range there are a number of other admittedly more exotic cartridges that offer far superior external and terminal ballistic characteristics. The .338 Lapua magnum comes to mind but there are many others. I'm also intrigued about how the system measures down-range wind. Very interesting article!

They can certainly pull it off. They need to find a good cartridge that will have both speed and weight which will combine to sufficient momentum to push through air currents. But they would be well advised to try and devise a scope that can see the air currents and adjust the aim accordingly. At 3,000 yards you could easily have 3-4 different air currents moving in different directions, each having a different impact on the bullet.

They would probably keep 338 Lapua. It holds the longest confirmed killshot record at 2700 yards. That was done by hand with a traditional rifle and optical scope. Add this thing and I can see how it could be accurate at 3000 yards.

The story makes clear they need to use a larger-caliber custom round (at least .40) to get reliable accuracy at that distance. That record shot you mentioned used a 250-gr bullet (!), which will get thrown around God knows how much considering the windages and humidity between shooter and a target almost two miles away. Even with specialized equipment and technical proficiency, it's not going to hit reliably without much higher muzzle velocity, and we're already talking about extremely high chamber pressures and overloaded charges.

The .50 rounds used by the previous two record shots threw a 750-gr bullet, so the intervening factors have a lot less influence on the ballistics.

Lovely. So how long until we've got at least one manmade lethal weapon pointed at us everywhere we go?

This is disturbing. A preoccupation with killing things faster, more efficiently, from a safer position. It won't end well. As someone linked above me, we already have automated turrets. How long until they're installed on civilian street corners (in ANY country)?

What a stupid race we are.

hopefully we will be able to return to that in human history where no one ever tried killing each other and resources were endless.

I'm surprised hat they're intending to use a .50 round out to those distances. At that sort of range there are a number of other admittedly more exotic cartridges that offer far superior external and terminal ballistic characteristics. The .338 Lapua magnum comes to mind but there are many others. I'm also intrigued about how the system measures down-range wind. Very interesting article!

I believe I addressed this in the piece, but they're looking to craft their own ammunition rather than use an existing cartridge. The exact specifics haven't been settled on, but Schauble indicated it would likely be between .40 and .50 caliber, and absolutely no bigger than 20mm.

I'm surprised hat they're intending to use a .50 round out to those distances. At that sort of range there are a number of other admittedly more exotic cartridges that offer far superior external and terminal ballistic characteristics. The .338 Lapua magnum comes to mind but there are many others. I'm also intrigued about how the system measures down-range wind. Very interesting article!

I believe I addressed this in the piece, but they're looking to craft their own ammunition rather than use an existing cartridge. The exact specifics haven't been settled on, but Schauble indicated it would likely be between .40 and .50 caliber, and absolutely no bigger than 20mm.

Use of rifle calibers larger than .50 inch runs into legal problems, as the guy mentioned.

Edit: Lee, are you sure Schauble didn't say "twelve millimeters"? Half an inch is 12.7mm, which is where BATF regs kick in.

This is disturbing. A preoccupation with killing things faster, more efficiently, from a safer position. It won't end well. As someone linked above me, we already have automated turrets. How long until they're installed on civilian street corners (in ANY country)?

FUD much? You have more chance of a large bird having a heart attack and falling on your head to kill you than of a theoretical turret accidentally shooting you. Technological progress never stops, and most of it can be used for nefarious purposes. We have laws and society to manage those things. Fortunately, automated turrets on street corners are already illegal, so the problem is already solved.

This is disturbing. A preoccupation with killing things faster, more efficiently, from a safer position. It won't end well. As someone linked above me, we already have automated turrets. How long until they're installed on civilian street corners (in ANY country)?

FUD much? You have more chance of a large bird having a heart attack and falling on your head to kill you than of a theoretical turret accidentally shooting you.

They can certainly pull it off. They need to find a good cartridge that will have both speed and weight which will combine to sufficient momentum to push through air currents. But they would be well advised to try and devise a scope that can see the air currents and adjust the aim accordingly. At 3,000 yards you could easily have 3-4 different air currents moving in different directions, each having a different impact on the bullet.

I don't think there's any way to "see" air currents besides using some form of radar. Most likely what they'll do is have the software ask the user to input crosswind estimates for both the firing location and downrange. For a reasonably high-speed bullet, it should be close enough.

On the contrary, there are ways to see the air current. That haze you sometimes see out in front of you on the road? You can see that through a riflescope when looking downrange. You can also see the effect it has on grass, wind, and clothing at different points in view.

Not that I've ever actually shot past 200m. Just going by what I'm told.

They can certainly pull it off. They need to find a good cartridge that will have both speed and weight which will combine to sufficient momentum to push through air currents. But they would be well advised to try and devise a scope that can see the air currents and adjust the aim accordingly. At 3,000 yards you could easily have 3-4 different air currents moving in different directions, each having a different impact on the bullet.

I don't think there's any way to "see" air currents besides using some form of radar. Most likely what they'll do is have the software ask the user to input crosswind estimates for both the firing location and downrange. For a reasonably high-speed bullet, it should be close enough.

Use of rifle calibers larger than .50 inch runs into legal problems, as the guy mentioned.

Edit: Lee, are you sure Schauble didn't say "twelve millimeters"? Half an inch is 12.7mm, which is where BATF regs kick in.

That's what I'm thinking. .50 is the limit, which is 12.7mm. There are exceptions for shotguns however.

Since .50 is the limit, and they've decided to call it "Super Gun" they might as well design their own new cartridge in .50 that has better ballistics than the century old .50 BMG.

I just checked my recording to be sure, and Schauble definitely said 20mm (more than once) as the potential maximum size cartridge they would consider.

I'm certainly not an expert in the legal issues surrounding the production of 20mm cartridges, so I'll defer to Schauble and his own words.

Interesting. I googled it. Here is what I found:http://smartgunlaws.org/fifty-caliber-r ... y-summary/[note that the above link seems pretty laced with opinions that may be silly and/or offensive to you, such as the idea that .50 caliber in a handgun or rifle is practical for committing murder]

So it appears California is the only state that prohibits .50. I couldn't find anywhere else in my [short] search.